First shots fired on post-Covid Scottish football

After the phony war, the first shots were fired on restructuring Scottish football post-Covid with the news that the SPFL have considered curtailing not starting Leagues One and Two until January. With one or two under-performing exceptions (Falkirk, Partick), clubs in the bottom two leagues are community clubs in the truest sense.

They exist to serve their local towns, provide physical and intellectual resources local youth clubs can use and aspire towards, allow a large the local employer put their brand on a hoarding and give grandparents somewhere to take the new generation without having to travel. They do not harbour ambitions of promotion to the Premiership, reaching that height would only skew cash flow and risk the entire venture.

These clubs are probably the most secure in British football right now. They don’t care if their players go out of contract, the vast majority of them will in June anyway. Wages are mostly below furlough levels, so they have been able to cut costs down to basic insurance and maintenance.

They could survive for a decade like this, if SPFL payments continue to trickle down, as I assume they will, they could even come out of the crisis cash positive. Opening for business behind closed doors, without pay-at-the-gate customers, reintroduces the bulk of their costs without corresponding income. It is not tenable.

The old Steinage, ‘Football is nothing without fans’ is being tested right now. Having stood at the side of fields in Wishaw, Cumbernauld, Brechin and Milton, I know it is not true; football matters to someone, whenever and wherever it is played. The more interesting questions, is can we have football clubs without fans or games?

It happened during the great 20th Century crisis. Not all survived the war, some may perish this time. The SPFL needed to overcome their recent divisions to move onto this conversation. Furlough will end before it is safe for fans to return to the game, the bottom two leagues should be parked until at least January.

About Author

151 Comments

Pages:

4

Since it’s quiet on here I’ll put out a question. You are in PL’s position and you have the chance to bury Sevco… do you do it?

Before you make your decision how would this affect Celtic?

Would we prosper in a league that we would probably win the next 10-20-30 league titles or would we stagnate?

Would we improve in Europe with possibly less money coming into the game?

Would we be invited to another league..if so where?

Personally I stopped watching games against Sevco many years ago, I stopped attending matches against them when I was going week in week out and would happily see them disappear of the face of the Earth… but from a Celtic point of view would this be a positive move?

Based on your understanding, to what extent are the Celtic board and CEO comfortable or uncomfortable with the way Scottish football authorities handled the demise and rebirth of a club playing out of Ibrox?

Craig Whyte was tied up in the emails between Rangers and Stewart Regan. That was in 2011 and shortly after his takeover. Makes me wonder if the SFA carefully selected the monitoring period knowing that Whyte was tied up in that and it could not go any further. David Murray was in charge at the time of submission which i think had to be in by March 31st 2011. During the Craig Where trial it was confirmed that there were serious issues around the submission but for some reason it was omitted from the charges.

Or it may be that Rangers were given a complete indemnity, providing all football debts outstanding at the time of signing the 5 way were settled. But if that was the case, why bring charges at all.

Well sadly enough I’ve read a lot of this stuff. Including the SFA JPDT findings and the LNS Commission findings.

What you find is there are no “mistakes”, “happy accidents” or “omissions” in these proceedings that were not contrived* and the Scottish Football Authorities ran these sham quasi-judicial processes to give the appearance of due process.

*well there was one but more on that later

Running over old ground but to my mind it’s worth remembering – Craig Whyte was a patsy for the old Rangers owners, they had to get out of Ibrox pronto before the who edifice collapsed around them but also had to make it look like the patsy had caused the crash.

No sympathy for Craig Whyte though, he entered this nest of vipers with his eyes wide shut… he expected Rangers to make him a small fortune.

The result was the instigators and perpetrators of Rangers wrongdoing got away Scot free. Craig Whyte did nothing wrong save… not pay anything that to his mind he didn’t have to… after all it was an insolvent business that would need over£100million to rescue and he’d be throwing good money after bad.

So the licence had to be finalised during David Murray’s tenure as owner but it was Allister Johnson in charge.

*The outstanding tax from the WTC has always been an issue they could not hide – it was the smoking gun that they couldn’t bury.

As you say, Rangers needed it paid by 31 March 2011, they were controlled by Lloyds Bank at the time you may remember; they had refused to pay it, SDM wasn’t going to pay it and Rangers PLC board who had spent all there money on players couldn’t pay it.

The Rangers executive had to get the status of the “outstanding” tax bill changed to disputed. Now here we get to the crux of the matter…

Why was Rangers expert QC so forthright in his advice to pay the sum (we know these guys are quite brilliant at muddying the waters when they wish), why were the ex- Directors and financial guys from Murray’s and Rangers so truthful in the stand?

A: Fraud.

A five letter word that was being used by HMRC. Far more serious than tax avoidance or tax evaision. You see Rangers had lied about having side letters for players in their DOS scheme – HMRC now had some of those letters – no one wanted to get disbarred or worse, go to jail.

So to say it was a hot potato was an understatement. The best they could do was re-negotiate the sale of Rangers to Craig Whyte asking him to pay it as part of the deal, although as you quite rightly state the Craig Whyte deal came many weeks after the UEFA cut off date – 31 March 2011.

So Rangers lied about the status of the Tax bill to get the UEFA licence, then trusted Mr Whyte to pay it in May and the whole affair could be brushed under the carpet so to speak.

Of course Craig Whyte never paid it and the outstanding debt came into public knowledge. Rangers and the SFA, were exposed. That’s when the e-mails went back and forth between Regan and Rangers about a cover up. Months after the breach.

It was the breach of the 31 March 2011 that should have been investigated but that would not have indemnified new Rangers from penalties associated with the dodgy licence application of 2011.

Remember Dave King was Chairman of Rangers when the charges were brought against newco, charges that were a sop to demands for a full inquiry. He was also a Non executive Director of oldco at the time of the breach, so could hardly claim innocence. Allister Johnson was likewise exposed.

So that was the reason that the “monitoring” period was inexplicably chosen for the charges and not the original licence submission itself, which could have been investigated and dealt with by the SFA – unless there is more to the 5wa than we know.

I can take no longer the disregard for the brilliance, the beauty, the eternal glow and the inspiration that is encompassed within the ‘Asterisk’.

I have conducted a campaign, ignored by the Celtic Board I have to say, called “Resolution *”, to acknowledge the celestial magnificence of this symbol of virtue and permanence. In doing so any references to Rangers, Sevco, Newco, any related publications or garments or any historical analyses MUST NOT use the term ‘asterisk’ when related to their moribund existence or the symbols on their shits (sorry …shirts)….

They will NOT have an ‘asterisk’…they will have a ‘footnote’…..and here I am being generous as I much prefer the term ‘snigger’.

The ‘stars’ on their upper apparel are in fact ‘stains’….(the ones on their lower clothing are ‘pebble dash’)

I cannot be associated with any community that sees it fit to associate this magnificent punctuative (a new word inspired by the ‘asterisk’) monument with a decaying cadaver of ghoulish irrelevance.

Think of the ‘Asterisk’ as like the star of Bethlehem…..think of it’s utterance evoking such magic, memories and life affirmation. Think of how to future generations when they open they look closer at that nebulae they see a club and its support (with obvious exceptions) at one in their commitment to 10 in row. They see a club, a permanence that in my lifetime has seen one off trophies, 7-1 league cup wins, 9 in a row twice, European cup finals, Seville, treble treble treble, and of course Lisbon.

That is what the Asterisk means to me….and that is why I would have it next our clubs name at every mention and in perpetuity.

Come with me on this journey, a voyage of excitement, an adventure of ecstasy, a foray into the world where the impossible is the commonplace, where the night skies are clear and radiate with the sparkle of a billion asterisks….and footnotes are merely the sound of dog turds being stepped upon.

I’ll be back when the board put out a statement backing me to the hilt on this….(or when I sober up from celebrating 9 in a row….again).

You know me well enough to realise that I am not necessarily ruling out there being two “options” but always prefer the old lawyers training of relying on the certainty of the “official” option.

You and I both know that there is evidence which suggests that a copy or copies of the 5 way agreement found its way to Celtic Park. If it did so, it seems inconceivable that PL has never seen it or read it.

It also seems inconceivable that the existence of such a document was never the topic if discussion among the board at Celtic Park between 2012 and 2018.

It is totally inconceivable that this document was never discussed at committee level within the SFA and/or the then SFL and it is very very unlikely that such a document was not drawn to the attention of a representative of Celtic Football Club.

If a representative of Celtic Football Club has seen the document is it likely that he or she did not mention it to the CEO?

Not very.

I always like to take away the “ifs” “possibles” and “maybes” from any situation and position and so my long piece yesterday always comes from the premise that what was said at the AGM was the absolute truth — namely that PL has NEVER seen the 5 way agreement.

If we take that as the absolute gospel then you take away all doubt in your subsequent analysis and reasoning.

So, let’s start from there and ask some questions.

Everyone knows that the 5 way agreement actually exists and it has since been referred to re the JPDT which ruled that this matter should go to CAS.

So my question is, if the CEO had not seen it and has never seen it — then why the hell has he not seen it?

Surely any CEO of a multi-million pound company must want to see such a document?

To deliberately not see it, to ignore it, to not familiarise yourself with its terms and it potential impact on your company could be classed as negligence in the extreme.

Quite aside whether the CEO is telling the truth and should apologise for any misleading statement, (all of which is a matter of proof) any decent CEO is obliged to take all reasonable steps to further the interests of the company he works for and the shareholders he represents. That is a matter of fact requiring no proof whatsoever.

Can it be said that not knowing what the 5 way says is in the best interests of the Celtic shareholders? I hardly think so.

Let’s then take this further.

Can it really be the case that the board of Celtic Football Club have entered into sponsorship agreements, commercial contracts, and printed season ticket terms and conditions without ever checking whether the so called 5 way agreement (which they are not party to and about which they know nothing) in any way impacts on those agreements, contracts and terms?

That too would be astonishing – even if only to read the agreement and establish that there is nothing in it that you need to disclose or alter in terms of any contract or obligation.

The point I am making is that the scenario you paint is bad especially if the CEO lied (for whatever reason) to shareholders about his, and the board’s, knowledge of the 5 way agreement – but the alternative scenario is actually worse if the same CEO and board have carried on regardless of any such agreement and made no effort to examine its terms, consider its “consequences” and look at its legal “implications”.

Paul said in his leader that the SFA look weak — and that is an understatement — but Celtic, on the whole, look incompetent and/or negligent if they genuinely don’t know what that agreement says and have no idea as to its consequences or otherwise.

However my main point in yesterday’s diatribe was that irrespective of the CEO and the current make up of the board (they all come and go eventually) the position as explained to us by that same board is that when it comes to an SFA vote on the pursuit of rule enforcement Celtic FC are powerless and totally ineffective if the rest of Scottish Football shrugs its shoulders in conclave and votes to do something that is totally against the normal laws of justice and their own rules of procedure.

Any association is a democracy and so one vote is one vote — but what we are clearly being told here is that this particular association and its members will, from time to time, abandon the pursuit of natural justice, the enforcement and application of its own published rules, will not conform to the rule of law that would otherwise bind the ordinary citizen, and will not correct any of its prior inconsistencies and contradictions – if it suits them.

The SFA does not run efficiently, was not able to, or chose not to, properly oversee a licensing function (and you know that I don’t think it has properly overseen the domestic licensing function for many many years let alone one solitary UEFA function), and has recently shown that after years and years it is wary of actually carrying out the administrative or judicial function of a regulatory body for the fear of the implications and consequences of doing so.

There is no desire to change this position (because that is football) and Celtic are patently unable to change it because all their calls for reform or inquiry have been booted clean out of the Hampden door.

The board are never going to proffer the apology you seek because to do so they would have to admit that they could have done more and that there are things they could change or might have changed – and that, by their own words, is simply not, and never was, going to happen.

Could it really be the case that after all these years of complaining about “honest mistakes” and “Dougie Dougie” moments that we reach a conclusion that the most honest, reliable and transparent thing about Scottish Football is the 90 minutes on the pitch?

Exactly what I was getting at yesterday.Was it better for us in the grand scheme of things that they survived.Personally ,I am conflicted in this.Yes,their dying would be glorious,but would that only be short term joy.I do love watching their slow lingering agonies,but I do understand other people wishing them dead.

That’s us as fans.We are not running a business in a European football backwater,and no matter what we think,we have blossomed since 2012,financially,and have achieved football feats that will go down in history.

Having read your posts yesterday and this morning in regard to the 5 way agreement, in particular to whether or not the CEO, The Board have seen or are aware of the content of the agreement, it seems to me there is lack of evidence.

There are those that would submit that the aforementioned have not had sight or know of the contents of the 5 way agreement. You do make a good case, that either they have had sight or knowledge or at least made themselves aware if they are worth their salt.

You say that any CEO”Should take steps to further the interests of the company he works for,and its shareholders”.To say,PL has not done this since 2012,seems to me,to be a bit churlish.I would prefer my CEO to be a ruthless bastard,and to get results anyway he could.If he thought that his actions would be to the betterment of Celtic in the future,then,to me,its hard to argue with his decisions.

Since I joined CQN many years ago there has always been talk of us (and possibly them ) moving league. Whether it’s a North Atlantic league, England, and 2nd division Euro league in the next few years… . I have no info as to whether this will happen but Celtic fans seem very confident that other leagues will want us and it’s bound to happen. I think covid will cause changes within the football structure but as to what changes I really don’t know.

I enjoy every setback Sevco endure on and off the pitch but I would happily forego that pleasure for the greater pleasure of them disappearing down the plughole for good along with their placemen in positions of authority.

No legal eagle so others have much more knowledge than I when it come sto the res. 12. I get surprised that celtic somehow get blamed for rangers, sevco whatever you call them cheating and scamming alongside the authorities.

Yes celtic could have tried to intervene but incase it’s not been noticed they are like teflon in scotland. I put a lot of money (relative to my circumstances) into celtic, I dont want celtic to spend that money chasing a lost cause.

Celtic is 1 of 42 member clubs. It used to be the case that 1 club, rangers was always gets treated more favourably than all others and I for one thought it would never change, I was wrong, they now treat sevco exactly the same way.

The best way to beat them is on the pitch, in the stadium and in the boardroom. Their biggest problem is they have to any friends trying to help them and it hurts them with no o e held to account. They have a sense of entitlement which hinders rather than helps, always looking at the quick, easy options rarely leads to long term positive outcomes.

Let be me clear — I am not, and never would, suggest that throughout his tenor as Director or CEO Peter Lawwell has done anything other than try to further the interests of the company and the shareholders — as he sees it.

Further, in certain respects I am the first to accept he has been very good for Celtic even if I, personally, believe that he and the board should have done certain things differently or at a different time over the years.

Being a board or committee member is sometimes difficult because part of your job is to question and challenge the executive’s plans, thinking, analysis and strategy, to make them double check and reassess any situation and then to choose a route and a plan and present it as a united front.

That is not easy and I would go so far as to say that Celtic PLC are somewhat guilty of not encouraging fresh directors or change which might result in greater challenge or scrutiny — and that comes from two sources within Celtic Park.

However, in this particular instance, I cannot see how being ignorant of the 5 way agreement in any way serves Celtic and its shareholders. I really can’t.

To take a very personal example;

I am a non exec of an organisation that generally looks at bank claims and the wrongs done to bank victims.

I represent bank claimants — but only a very few whom I have known personally for many years.

Last June, the FCA issued a final notice on a certain bank which ran to some 46 pages. In many respects, the document was no more than interesting reading as it was issued long after claims had been submitted and determined.

Except that hidden in one solitary throwaway paragraph in the middle of the 46 pages was a piece of information which showed that the bank concerned, its lawyers, its PR guys and even a supposedly independent assessor had all lied, misled and were in complete dereliction of their duty.

It was my job to further the interests of others by reading every scrap of paper that might just throw a light on their case and their situation even if the document seemed irrelevant and had nothing to do with them.

What I am saying re the 5 way is that it must be the board’s job to know what is in that agreement and so be able to say to fans and shareholders there is nothing in there that effects you.

Auldheid’s particular point is that fans and shareholders were encouraged by the board to spend upwards of £11,000 on professional fees and hundreds of hours in meetings. correspondence, and research trying to pursue an avenue which the same 5 way agreement effectively renders useless.

If Celtic new that agreement existed then they should have said so and pointed out the likely or potential outcome.

If they didn’t know it existed – when it was widely reported to exist and indeed drafts were sent to Celtic directors — then they had a duty to look at it no matter what it said or who signed it or who it involved just in case.

And it is in that regard that I suggest that the interests of shareholders has not been protected in this particular instance.

In other instances the shareholders interests are protected very very well — just not here unfortunately.

On the one hand you have PL publicly declaring that he has never seen the 5 way.

On the other hand there are copy e-mails in existence sending it to Celtic Park.

Can you guarantee the legitimacy of the e-mails and can you know for sure they were sent on to PL?

Not absolutely but the source has been accurate before so why not now?

My point is — let’s take the speculation away and simply take PL at his word.

If he has never seen it (always remembering that Celtic were never the wrongdoer in 2011/2012 and that they are not the regulatory body charged with assessing and granting licences in terms of pre set rules) is that a good thing and should he have seen it and been able to advise on its contents?

Also, if he has never seen it, what faith can you or he have in Scottish Football if the SFA can and will enter into such agreements and keep them from CEO’S and Directors such as PL?

Thanks for the clarification. When you said “posters”, I thought I’d missed a wheen of people who liked Lord Dimmo.

If it was just MacJay, and that is pretty mad even by Macjay’s standards, then it is not a position upheld by any other CQNr or worthy of being associated with this blog.

Lord Dimmo had already demonstrated his gullibility credentials when he gave an interview., in his own house, to a con man from a newspaper when he was put in charge of the Magic Circle investigation into lenient treatment given to charged homosexuals who might implicate Embra judges and lawyers.

(Incidentally, there used to be a lot of stuff on the web citing this event but most of it has disappeared when you try to google it- I almost managed to convince myself that I had imagined it but it is still there in Hansard when Lord Macauley (who had described Lord Dimmo as ” I would not have chosen Mr. Nimmo Smith to lead the inquiry or adopted the same form of inquiry.” Nevertheess he sides with him and thinks being conned is an everyday occurence for such learned folk. He said:-

“Unfortunately, Mr. Nimmo Smith paid a penalty healthwise, having been conned by a person purporting to represent a well-known national newspaper. He had an interview with him in his house, and certain newspapers then sought to destroy not only Mr. Nimmo Smith but the basis of his report. If you can show me the man or woman who has not been conned in one realm of life I will show you either a liar or a very fortunate person.”

As an aside- Hansard gives another interesting insight into how major reports are scrutinised and debated. Lord Macauley when asked to give his views in the House of Lords said “My Lords, the publication of the report is welcomed by this side of the House. Before I comment perhaps I may make one observation. This report was made on 15th December, 1992. I do not criticise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, in any way, but I was handed a copy of the 101-page report only 20 minutes ago. That being so, it seems a negation of the democratic process that I am asked to stand up and comment on the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord. For that reason I cannot respond positively to the content of the report. I have no intention of trying to read it in 20 minutes. I could not do so.”

Maybe the SFA and SPFL are not the only Establishment institutions using dubious methods to get at the truth.

Having read your posts yesterday and this morning in regard to the 5 way agreement, in particular to whether or not the CEO, The Board have seen or are aware of the content of the agreement, it seems to me there is lack of evidence.

There are those that would submit that the aforementioned have not had sight or know of the contents of the 5 way agreement. You do make a good case, that either they have had sight or knowledge or at least made themselves aware if they are worth their salt.

To me it is down to who you believe without any evidence?

Keep the Faith

Hail Hail!

===== ====

Lack of evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist and I for one would not knowingly say or hint at anything I could not back up.

The minute I do that I’m Tum Tabard.

Taking the role of a Fair Witness from Stranger in a Strange Land what I’ll say is there is an e mail from Neil Doncaster sent to members of the SPL Board including Eric Riley and Peter Lawwell )not his PA) in late July (27th?) with the 5 Way agreement attached and referred to.

That e mail also says if no reply by the following day then that will be taken as acceptance of its contents.

Is it authentic? Well everything else from the same source has been, so highly unlikely it is made up.

To address BRTH’s point about the consequences of being unaware of its contents, I agree wholeheartedly it would be a dereliction of duty had Celtic’s business since July 2012 been conducted in the absence of the knowledge of the contents and implications of the 5 Way.

I can sharpen that by adding that to have actually had the document sent to you and not open it and read it and in failing to do so accept the Agreement goes beyond a dereliction of duty and as such is unbelievable.

So what we have is PL had delivered to him the 5 Way Agreement which if he did not respond to the next day he was accepting. I know there can be cases of plausible deniability but only the most gullible of the gullible inhabitants of Gullible Village would buy that argument.

If memory serves me correctly Sentinel Celts posted a copy with the e mail addresses anonymised around two months ago.

ADVERTISEMENTS

ADVERTISEMENTS

Celtic Quick News

Welcome to the new look Celtic Quick News where you will find the latest Celtic news and features, posted 365 days a year! You can join the conversation too! Simply register and have your say below the blog posts at the top of the site. For more information please email celticquicknews@gmail.com